Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 OK, my version goes like this: Dear Mr Bebbington RE : Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime, Consultation Paper. Could you please explain why you propose to levy a £5 charge on motorists committing minor Road Traffic Offences (speeding) to help pay for victims of crime? Where is the connection here? Speeding, and the vast majority of Road Traffic offences are victimless crimes. I would fully support a proposal to pass such legislation where a motorist has killed or injured another person, but to levy the charge against ALL motorists convicted of a victimless offence is clearly inequitable. As a member of a Motoring Club I know that there is a great deal of opposition and anger about these proposals. Speeding fines are already widely thought of as a so called “stealth tax”, and not a means of improving road safety. Indeed, it would seem that very little of the revenue generated by motorists through Vehicle Excise Duty, Fuel Duty, Insurance Duty, and the income generated from fines levied for motoring offences, is spent on safety, or even the general upkeep of Britain’s badly under funded transport infrastructure. It appears that the motorist is getting extremely poor value for money from this Government. These proposals will only confirm that this Government is unfairly targeting motorists for the purpose of revenue generation, and further alienate a large proportion of otherwise law abiding, tax paying, and insurance paying motorists. These proposals are clearly ill conceived, poorly thought through, and badly presented. I shall be lobbying my MP to vote against these proposals, should they be put to The House. Any future MP or Government supporting these, or any other direct or indirect taxation of the already over burdened motorist, will not be getting my support. Yours sincerely, Please, as Nana's has mentioned, alter some of the text so that they aren't getting the same letter over and over again. Otherwise they're likely to treat it as one letter.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Keene Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Dear Mr Bebbington I would like to hear your explanation of why the Government propose to increase the cost of the current Fixed Penalty Ticket by £5 for motorists who commit minor Road Traffic Offences, for example speeding, to assist with the compensation for victims of crime. What is the link between minor Road Traffic Offences and victims of violent crime, burglary, theft, etc? Surely this should be paid for from current general taxation? Speaking as a member of a large national Motoring Club, there is a significant amount of opposition and anger to this proposal. The vast majority of members already consider speeding fines to be a means of generating extra revenue, Tax, and not a method of generating income to improve road safety. This proposal only confirms this to be the case, how can a £5 levy to pay for the victims of crime be considered an improvement in road safety? This proposal will further alienate the honest motorist who pays his/her tax, insurance, drives a properly maintained car, etc. This proposal is ill conceived, lacks thought and is a further burden to the already victimised motorist. I will be lobbying my MP to vote against this proposal, in the event that they are put to vote in The House of Commons. Any current / future MP's and Government's, supporting this proposal, or any other forms of indirect taxation of the already over burden and taxed motorist, will not be getting my support. I would appreciate hearing your views on the points raised above. Yours sincerely, Martin Keene and here's mine... something very similar has gone to both local MP's as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Keene Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 err, promise I didn't copy Blatman's... we just seem to have ended up with a similar letter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 You'll be hearing from my lawyers.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.c Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 You'll be hearing from my lawyers.......... You'll be OK Martin............Blatters didn't put his name on his David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Actually, I signed mine: Love Blatman. I'm sure he'll be getting that one to look at, just after MI5 have checked it out...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Albert Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 My considered opinion on New Labour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 That's my opinion on most politicians, most of the time....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 If Bebbington is the consultation co-ordinator then he's just a civil servant - it won't be his idea. But, presumably, if there is a consultation co-ordinator then there is an official consultation. Government consultation periods are usually 3 months. IME, unsolicited letters from private individuals are not taken into account in such consultations. You have to be part of an organisation which has been invited to take part in the consultation. If your organisation has not been included, then you can ask to be included. This doesn't go for private individuals, AFAIK. This needs co-ordinating via the AA, the RAC, the ABD, the WSCC etc. It is done like this because the b******s know that it is more difficult for any rebels to organise it this way. Also, IME, if it is an official consultation, chances of changing it are probably akin to stopping a glacier. Once it is in the consultation paper they have already decided where it's going to go. At the very least, the letter should be sent to the Minister whose department is sponsoring the consultation. You should be writing to Blunkett, not the pen-pusher. How can you tell if a politician is lying - he opens his mouth.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Also, IME, if it is an official consultation, chances of changing it are probably akin to stopping a glacier. Once it is in the consultation paper they have already decided where it's going to go. I read the consultation paper on the new mobile phones in cars ruling. I was surprised in that it seemed to address precicely the issues that the man in the street would raise, and these issues were intelligently addressed, to the point that I have absolutely no problem at all with this latest piece of legislation. The consultation paper also, IIRC, contained written submissions from "Joe Public". In any case, I shall dash a copy off to the PM, Blunkett, Darling and his boss Dr Kim Howells, and my local MP........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Just checked my facts.... Page 28 of the decision and summary paper for the mobile phone law notes that 789 individuals responded to the consultation document. The document can be found here.... Sadly I can't find the consultation paper for the "extra" fines anywhere........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 OK, found it. The offending suggestion is to be found in section 3.3 (on page 16) of this document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Blatman, you could well be right. My limited experience is in industrial regulatory consultations by the DTI and DEFRA, not on criminal law issues by the Home Office, and I am bl**** jaundiced at the moment by the way the useless b******ds are transposing the EU end-of-life-vehicle Directive into UK law as it is going to f**k your local scrappy; probably going to f**k the whole metals recycling industry. But enough of that - my other point was that we are definitely better off tackling the organ grinder and not the monkey. I guarantee that everyone's local MP, if they reply, will write back saying they have written to the Minister, and will then write back again with the reply from the Minister's office (unlikely to be from himself), and that all the letters form the Minister's office will be one and the same. However, since Westminster protocol is that you generally don't get to a Minister without being sponsored by an MP, it does make good sense to write to your MP. He's the guy who counts on your vote and he is more likely to get a reply from Blunkett than you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Government consultation periods are usually 3 months. IME, unsolicited letters from private individuals are not taken into account in such consultations. You have to be part of an organisation which has been invited to take part in the consultation. If your organisation has not been included, then you can ask to be included. This doesn't go for private individuals, AFAIK. Reading the consultation document further, this doesn't seem to be correct, although I guess you could interpret the guidelines differently to how I have. The Government code of practice reccommendations for consultation documents are thus: The Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office recommends thefollowing criteria: A Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage. B It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose. C A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain. D Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals. E Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation. F Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken. G Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated. Section D does make it clear that individuals with an interest should be consulted, so I guess that would include us drivers....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 However, since Westminster protocol is that you generally don't get to a Minister without being sponsored by an MP It's not what you know, it's who you know........ I'm going to try to get my letter thrust in to the ministers hand. I'll let you know how I get on........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.